On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 04:00, Robert Dionne
<dionne@dionne-associates.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Randall Leeds wrote:
>>
>> keeping cluster information and database metadata up to date around
>> the cluster, but that information tends to be small and changes
>> infrequently.
>>
>> However, to me this sounds like a lot of work for something that might
>> be better solved using technologies like zeromq, particularly if
>> logging all messages is optional.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm happy to talk about all of this further since I think it's
>> kind of fascinating. I've been thinking a lot recently about how flood
>
> I'm curious, is flood replication what the name implies? Broadcasting?
>
I'll throw this at dev@, too.
Yes, broadcasting.
I've been thinking about alternative checkpoint schemes that take the
source and destination host out of the equation and figure out some
other way to verify common history. I imagine it's going to have to
involve a hash tree.
With the ability to resolve common history without having *directly*
exchanged checkpoints, hosts could receive incremental update batches
from different hosts if the replication graph changes over time.
Anyway, it's just a little infant of a thought, but I think it's a
good one to have in our collective conscious.
Randall